Talk:Stresemann's bushcrow

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stresemann's Bushcrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC) I will be starting this review in the next few days and would welcome input from others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose and style are now satisfactory.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Layout is satisfactory.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well sourced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A small number of sources are used but they seem reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects are covered satisfactorily. It would be good if the article included some assessment from the IUCN as to why it considers the bird is endangered. This now done.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Extensive editing work took place in November 2011. Since then, article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image of bird and distribution map are fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article passes the good article criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

On the whole the article is well written with correct punctuation and grammar. The lead section is less satisfactory and there are several places in it where I feel there is a word such as an "and" or an "a" missing. On the whole, the lead is a fair summary of the contents of the article but it could also mention the bird's conservation status.

In the "Reproduction" section, could you add a wikilink or explain "Allofeeding and allopreening". Also in that section, the dimensions of the nest seem strange. How can it be globular, 30cm long and 60cm in diameter? The sentence which starts "The nest is made out of thorny twigs, which the interior chamber ..." needs attention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)